He Needed Killing!

It started with reports on the investigation of suspected Jaycee Dugard kidnapper Phillip Garrido, a convicted rapist, with respect to the murders of eight local prostitutes. It discovered more of the bodies of 11 suspected murder victims in various stages of decomposition in and around the Ohio home of convicted attempted rapist Anthony Sowell, and proceeded through a bizarre shooting of 43 people at Fort Hood, allegedly by Army Major Nidal Malik Hassan. It ended with the execution by lethal injection of John Allen Muhammad, the "DC Sniper," who was convicted of premeditated murder of Dean Harold Meyers in Prince William County, Virginia, and was implicated in the premeditated shooting of 23 others.

It is really too soon to speculate on the fate of Garrido, who served 11 years of a 50 year sentence for rape, and Sowell, who served 15 years in prison for attempted rape. Hassan, up until a few days ago at least, was serving honorably as an Army psychiatrist. All of them must be considered innocent until proven guilty by a jury "beyond a reasonable doubt." Muhammad, on the other hand, was already sentenced to die for the murder of which he was found guilty. Three of the four are veterans: Sowell was a US Marine from 1978 to 1985. Hassan was an enlisted soldier for 8 years before being commissioned. Muhammad was in the National guard from 1978 to 1994, including nine years of active duty. All three of them know a thing or two about killing people.

The same cannot be said for Arlington, Virginia, Bishop Paul S. Loverde. In an article published by the Archdiocese of Baltimore, Bishop Loverde urged that Muhammad's sentence be commuted to life in prison without possibility of parole. He claimed that "in advocating the use of the death penalty, our society has moved beyond the legitimate judgment of crimes," and spoke of "God's transforming mercy" and "hope in the redemption of an immortal soul." He did not, however, volunteer to assume responsibility or pay the cost of Muhammad's incarceration, or explain why seven years is not sufficient time to try to make amends for murdering innocent victims in cold blood.

Bishop Loverde's contention that, "When life without the possibility of parole in a maximum security prison is an option, we have no need for the death penalty," is incredibly naive. This naivete' is further demonstrated by his comparison of the overwhelming menace of an unrepentant terrorist who deliberately shoots a mother in front of her toddler, or a wife next to her husband, with the minor social annoyance of a sexually active consenting adult described in John 8:3-11, however personally culpable!

I respectfully submit that, however learned he is in doctrine, Bishop Loverde does not demonstrate even the understanding of, let alone the necessity for, protecting the innocent. He has never taken on the responsibility of parenthood, or risked his life, as the soldier does, in the service of his fellow man. He and his fellow bishops infrequently serve on juries, apprehend dangerous suspects, or have to make the decision about whether or not to shoot an approaching four-year-old Iraqi child who just might be holding a live grenade or explosive backpack. His dealing with the danger represented by homosexual priests in his diocese is reported to be, at best, a miserable failure! His article completely overlooks the fact that people in "maximum security prisons" are still capable of escape, rape, killing fellow inmates, attacking correctional personnel, and serving as models and evil inspiration for others, such as, for example, Lee Boyd Malvo, who alledged that Muhammad sexually abused him.

They are also capable of unspeakable crimes after they have been "justly punished." Just ask the few surviving victims of Phillip Garrido and Anthony Sowell, both of whom "paid their debt to society."

The teaching of the Catholic Church, unlike that of Bishop Loverde, is specifically that: "If, however, nonlethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means..." and "...as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm ... the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent." (CCC 2267) The Church did not claim that "life without the possibility of parole in a maximum security prison" is one of those possibilities. Surgical severing of the convict's spinal column to render him incapable of anything but spiritual contemplation might be, but not even the Catholic Church advocates that!. A guy in Saudi Arabia was reportedly sentenced to be crippled as "just" punishment for doing the same to somebody he viciously stabbed, and the entire "Christian" world is outraged about it.

"Manifestation of despair" reflected in Muhammad's sentencing; the "shock and fear" of the community; "outrage" at his actions; his color, mental condition, upbringing, or intrinsic worth as a human being; the desirability of reform; the degree to which the society that produced him is guilty, or whether or not any one of us is without sin, are relevant only in other contexts. What is relevant to society now is, given that he has demonstrated that he's among the most dangerous living beings on this planet, what should be done with him? What is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against such an aggressor? He's much more dangerous than a rabid pet! What do we do with them?!

Confusing the "desire [for] revenge" or the question of whether "such a person deserves to die" with the sacred duty civil authority has to protect its citizens obfuscates the real question involved, which is whether or not the social advantage of keeping any particular convicted felon alive overrides the social desirability for his irretrievable elimination. As I see it, the bishops culpably forsake their duty to preach truth when they confuse menace with sin, peril with mercy, threat with redemption, and protection with punishment.

Whether mercy or revenge are appropriate for John Allen Muhammad, or Phillip Garrido, or Anthony Sowell or Malik Hassan, how long they should be given the opportunity for repentance, or whether they deserve to die, are questions to be answered only by Almighty God, "far above our poor power to add or detract." We all desire mercy and deserve to die; it's part of our nature. Many are dead who deserve life, and none of us can give it to them. "It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work" for which those we honor on Veterans' Day "gave the last full measure of devotion;" to bring about a "more perfect union" founded to "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty," to put an end to all wars, and to make our world safe for democracy.

A Virginia jury of his peers, after hearing all the admissible evidence against him, unanimously decided that a society "of the people, by the people, for the people" should not tolerate the continued existence in its midst of John Allen Muhammad - specifically, that he needed killing! So did the judge. So did the Virginia Supreme Court. So did a Maryland jury. So did the United States Supreme Court. So did Catholic Governor Tim Kaine.

So do I.

John Lindorfer November 11, 2009

P. S. (Update) On the same day that John Allen Muhammad was finally rendered incapable of committing another crime, 5-year-old Shania Davis was reported missing by her mother, Antoinette Nicole Davis, who in actuality had pimped her daughter to her murderer, Mario Andrette McNeill, to settle a $200 debt. The child's sexually assaulted and asphyxiated body was found six days later, dumped near a state highway in a kudzu patch where deer hunters leave carcasses to rot. Ms. Davis pled guilty to second-degree murder, kidnapping, prostitution, sexual assault, child abuse, pedophilia, and other related charges and was given a sentence of 210 to 261 months in prison. McNeill was convicted in May, 2013, of first-degree murder, first-degree kidnapping, sexual offense of a child, indecent liberties with a child, human trafficking and sexual servitude and was sentenced to death. An appeals court unanimously dismissed his argument that he had been convicted because of incompetent counsel. He is now on death row in a North Carolina prison awaiting an execution date.

Every single American who advocates not positively eliminating the risk posed by such dangerous convicted felons, preferably before they commit such horrible atrocities, must share in the guilt of this innocent child's disgusting murder!

In a letter to the bishops published the same day, Pope Francis explained that this "new awareness that recognizes the inadmissibility of the death penalty and, therefore, calling for its abolition" is based, among other things, on "the deepened understanding of the significance of penal sanctions applied by the State, and the development of more efficacious detention systems that guarantee the due protection of citizens..."

The directed change, and its explanatory letter, differ from Bishop Loverde's article in several respects. The Pope did not address the "legitimate judgment of crimes," or "life without the possibility of parole," or equate indiscriminate, unrepentent multiple murders with a single sin of adultery committed, and repented, by an unknown woman almost 2000 years ago. He didn't really change the teaching of the Catholic Church, either. The superceded paragraph 2267 (then) read in part, "If, however, nonlethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means..." The Pope's position evidently is that "...the development of more efficacious detention systems that guarantee the due protection of citizens..." (without specificing what they were) are (now), in his opinion, "...sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor..." Basically, that the danger posed by the convict can be positively eliminated without killing him.

Mission accomplished!

It is important that, the revision to the Catechism and the Pope's letter address specifically "capital punishment," the judicial imposition of the "death penalty," mentioned 25 times, including the titles and references, on convicted criminals. It does not say anything about warfare, deadly weapons, shooting fleeing suspects, abortion, or use of lethal force to protect onself or others. These are, of course, important topics for discussion in other contexts.

None of this contradicts Scripture. The Old Testament did indeed mandate the "death penalty" as "punishment" for certain behaviors, many of which are in fact socially acceptable today. It also required restitution by trading evil for evil in Exodus 21:23 and following. Jesus himself repudiated this tradition in Matthew 5:38 and following. If you don't believe my bible, look it up in your own. There are obviously Christians who prefer Jewish law over the teachings of Jesus, but Catholics are not among them.

It doesn't contradict my stated position either. I am not comfortable with any "penalty" for felonies generally, and I did not even address "penalties" in the foregoing. I was talking about protection of society from dangerous criminals, specifically, one who had been sentenced to death. I admit that I do not know what any convicted criminal "deserves," regardless of his crime, but I'm pretty sure that I don't deserve suddenly to be murdered by him while I'm simply driving along the Capital Beltway. Frankly, I do not believe that any crime, especially one that harms a fellow human being, can be "undone," regardless of what is imposed on someone after he commits it. I believe, as the Pope apparently does, that society should focus on prevention of crimes, and protection of its citizens, a position I discuss elsewhere. In the case of John Allen Muhammad, my position at the time was that he was a mortal danger to society (then) as long as he was alive, and I stand by that opinion. The Pope's position that: "development of more efficacious detention systems...guarantee the due protection of citizens" now, seems right, because among other reasons, the "death penalty" in the United States doesn't seem to be doing much good. For one thing, it takes too long, costs too much, and doesn't prevent the crime for which it is imposed or keep others from committing the same one. There has to be a better way! The Pope has challenged us to find it!

Just for the record, the Pope did not claim that the United States, or any other country, is currently using these "more efficacious detention systems that guarantee the due protection of citizens," or is even planning or proposing to do so. What he said was that the "death penalty" is inadmissible because it is possible to do that. As I noted in the foregoing, "life without the possibility of parole in a maximum security prison" falls short of the mark. The logical conclusion is that is morally incumbent on society to develop and use new and innovative "more efficacious detention systems" to "guarantee the due protection of citizens" rather than to choose to kill dangerous criminals because that's the only way we accomplish that purpose now.

I agree!

A number of commentators have raised concern about Catholic Supreme Court Justices blocking all executions as a result of the Pope's new guidance on the matter. These people don't understand Catholic philosophy, which is that the duty of the Justices is to interpret what the law is, not what it should be. That latter responsibility belongs to the legislature. We shall see whether current and future legislators choose adequately to protect society from dangerous criminals in ways other than allowing them to be killed, or whether they, and their clergy, will simply disregard their moral duty as they did in the personhood issue in Mississippi.

John Lindorfer August 5, 2018